Summarizing the 140-ish posts so far the folks that want an amnesty apparently really want a cultural return to the bad old days when the banned folks fit in better.
But they were still bad enough t be banned under the then-existing old rules and ild culture. So apparently they’d prefer SDMB become even worse.
There’s reddit for that. And YouTube comments. I don’t see much traction for this idea here and now.
@Mighty_Mouse is also (originally) Pakistani, but isn’t an incel jerk.
Naah, it was his overall tendency to just insult people, I think. Dude had a lot of warnings.
I mainly remember him for trying to make a porn advent calendar. And wasn’t he the one who had an attraction to Twilight Sparkle?
Other than recognizing the name I have no recollection of the (almost certainly) guy or his posting style.
Don’t get me wrong here folks, I’m not defending the banned folks. Nor the folks wanting them unbanned. We attract (or fail to later repel) a lot more new talent when we keep the jerky jerks and their jerky jerkishness off the board.
Unfortunately, quirky and jerky seem to be correlated personality traits, at least among keyboard extroverts. So a less-jerky SDMB is also going to be a less quirky SDMB. We can mourn the small loss of non-jerky quirkies even as we admit we’re better off without the concomitant jerky turkeys.
That line can be murky, but your post is perky.
Shodan is only suspended as far as I can see. Does that mean that he could ask to come back?
Sometimes the user title will say “Suspended” when they are actually banned. I don’t recall the specifics in his case but generally a suspension will be for a set term and they can just start posting again once the term is complete.
Shodan was banned prior to the move to Discourse. Under vBulletin, a ban and a suspension were two different things. Under Discourse, a “ban” is just a permanent suspension. We manually change the user’s title now when we ban someone just to make it more clear, but we aren’t going to go back through all of the banned users and update their titles.
Anyone can ask to come back. We take those on a case-by-case basis, but generally speaking you need to prove that you have changed your behavior before we will seriously consider it. Despite what some people think, it’s actually fairly difficult to get yourself banned (with a few exceptions, like threatening legal actions) and since most people who have been banned have a proven history of either refusing to or being unable to change, that’s a lot to overcome to convince us that you really have changed this time.
We have let a few users back in over the years. Usually it doesn’t work out.
Pretty much. I agree that having a range of different opinions, experiences, points of view, and interests makes the board a more interesting place. But, one can and should be able to disagree with others, and hold fervent views, without being a jerk or a troll – having a bunch of unrestrained jerks on the board chases away other good posters, and leaves behind only those with thick skin, or those who enjoy a coarse, name-calling discourse.
The people on @Wrenching_Spanners 's “I wish they’d come back” list were all warned repeatedly about not being a jerk, and were unable or unwilling to do so
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
I’m fine with that, though. It’s not a poster I’ll have much respect for, but it’s easily ignored. AK84’s problem was insulting other posters, not the US.
As for banned posters I wish could come back, my list is limited to drewtoo99 who was a fun, intelligent poster until he was banned ~10 years ago for creating a sock to make a really stupid joke. One poster in 10 years…I can live with that as balance to all the toxic people who were rightly banned.
This. A ban amnesty would amount to a blanket invitation to those unable to contain themselves in a much less civil board. Of course, it would also apply to more recent banees.
There are some posters with specialist expertise that I miss. But the core problems with this board are linked to dwindling activity, not missing a small share of certain past voices.
Those wanting to broaden the board’s reach might consider posting SD material on other social media. Those wanting to lower the civility bar to standards of the past… are in the minority. Personally, I don’t care: I can adapt. Just keep the lines reasonably clear, something that IMHO has always been the case here, notwithstanding the ostensible claims of certain line dancers and rules lawyers.
He was actually a serial socker who has created (and probably continues to create) numerous online personalities, both here and elsewhere. I had a hard time believing that the first sock of his that I caught was actually a sock because she had such a huge online presence. It took a while to sort that one out.
I’m not arguing that those posters weren’t jerks or rule-breakers. I’m arguing that they were interesting. My answer to the thread title, “What if the dope offered a ban amnesty?” is that the board would be more interesting if controversial posters with strong opinions were allowed to, and were willing to, start posting again. Sure, they’d probably post in the same way that they did before. But at least for Great Debates and Politics and Elections, I’d prefer environments full of robust diversity of opinion rather than a system where everyone has to “play nice” to protect the thin skins of majority opinion holders who dislike when people disagree with them.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you, and this sort of sentiment was the genesis of this thread.
But I also hear all the arguments about how civility is necessary for debate to occur, and how the bannees earned their banishments, and how toxicity drives away good posters, and I am not willing to die on this hill.
But I hear ya on the “more interesting” part.
You seem to have mistakenly conflated two disparate populations.
Your head canon seems to be telling you that posters have been banned for, in your words, “unpopular opinions”. This group of bannees does not exist. If you believe these are who you want amnesty extended to, you won’t see any eligible takers.
The actual bannees, historically, are folks who are disagreeable on a pure behavior basis. They would never be welcomed back, no matter their beliefs. And if they were, they would almost certainly find themselves banned again, unless they (against all odds) decided to straighten up.
I don’t believe they were banned for their opinions. I think they broke the rules, were reported, and the moderators took action. However, I do think part of the reason they were reported is because they were unpopular with people they disagreed with. There are posters here who are jerks but don’t seem to get warned and it’s probably because nobody reports them. People are tribal. They’re more tolerant of people who agree with them and share their values. Conversely, they’re more likely to dislike people who disagree with them and their values, and to take action against those they dislike, especially when it’s anonymous and there’s zero risk. That leads to groupthink rather than an environment with a variety of different beliefs and opinions.
They were being jerks. The fact that they have unpopular opinions shouldn’t (and IMO rarely does) impact the decision to ban the poster. But it certainly doesn’t excuse their behavior. If we accept all you say, they were still being jerks and deserve to be banned.
As were Hitler, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, Hurricane Katrina and the January 6 Insurrection. I don’t think “I want to watch train wrecks!” is a good enough reason not to try to prevent them in the first place.
Could we compromise on a demolition derby?